I Predict A Riot
Discussion
Tannedbaldhead said:
rambo19 said:
When the white lawyer mark saunders was shot by police in chelsea, I don't remember gangs of white people rioting.
When jean charles de menezes was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of brazilians rioting.
When harry stanley was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of scots rioting.
It just seems to me, that whenever anything bad happens to a black person, it's always to do with their colour.
It's time for parts of the black community to stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
The Lawyer was a fare shoot. As for the other two considering there were no consiquences perhaps a riot shouldn't be out of the question (should such shootings have been a more common occurence). It would be the only way the public can temper the behaviour of those who police us. I'd also like to see proper decent riots where the crowd focus like a laser on the police rather than this aquisitional nonsense where the goal of the riot is to gain a set of Nikes, an iPhone and a flat screen TV.When jean charles de menezes was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of brazilians rioting.
When harry stanley was shot by police, I don't remember gangs of scots rioting.
It just seems to me, that whenever anything bad happens to a black person, it's always to do with their colour.
It's time for parts of the black community to stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
The thread included comments and questions about whether the black community in Ferguson were right or wrong to riot and used the example of the restraint of other communities when unarmed members have been shot by the police.
My view is that as lawyer Mark Saunders was armed and discharging a firearm into the street it was not unreasonable for him to be shot by armed officers hence my comment "The lawyer is a fair shoot".
With regards to the shootings of Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley my opinion is that there were sufficient circumstances for the armed officers to feel it necessary to use deadly force. I'm not happy about either situation. Whilst neither incident was a malicious shooting by trigger happy gun toting police at the same time mistakes were made and no individual was brought to account and punished. This wouldn't happen in my line of work. If as a surveyor I had failed in my duties of care to my colleagues and as a result of erroneous risk assessments and method statements someone was to fall from a great height or take a lungful of asbestos I could well end up prosecuted by the HSE and end up in Barlinnie. That said, and in fairness to the authorities both incidents were investigated and I, along with most other members of the public, found it plain to see genuine regret for what occurred and a firm resolve to examine the events with a view to do all that is possible to prevent such tragedies occurring ever again.
This being the case I feel there was no deep felt anger needing to be expressed by the public and certainly no desire to take to the barricades. If, however, such shootings were happening on a regular basis and no action, no examination, no attempt to resolve the issue was to occur expressed in my caveat "should such shootings have been a more common occurrence" then I feel protest would be justified. If police should bring force to bear on protesters then an escalation of the disorder is also justified. In reality I don't see a chain of events occurring causing the actions I've just described rendering the whole subject matter of this thread as hypothetical.
Pie with sauce said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Ahh ok. And the "id like to see a proper riot where the crowd focus like a laser on the police"?
He's just trying to wind you up. Don't respond.I will qualify what I say first. The riots of 2011 started as a result of a shooting of a known and armed criminal. It makes the protesting of his death somewhat suspect and the subsequent riots totally unjustifiable. Again the shooting was investigated in depth and I'm pretty sure that were any lessons to be learned from the shooting they would be and incorporated into firearms training and engagement procedures thereafter. The British Police seem to avoid killing people wherever possible. Judging how few people are shot by the police in proportion to the number of firearm incidents I'd also add they are bloody good at not killing people.
My comment that the crowd should focus like a laser on the Police was more a back handed dig at the aquisitional rioting of 2011. Basically if you have a fight with the police take it to the police and not Currys-PC World and JJB Sports.
Tannedbaldhead said:
With regards to the shootings of Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley my opinion is that there were sufficient circumstances for the armed officers to feel it necessary to use deadly force. I'm not happy about either situation. Whilst neither incident was a malicious shooting by trigger happy gun toting police at the same time mistakes were made and no individual was brought to account and punished. This wouldn't happen in my line of work.
In the circumstances of a planned firearms operation - and not only firearms of course, but many/most major incidents - there are certain specified procedures that those in charge should follow. Responsibility for various actions are given to certain commanders and they are left to an extent to perform their own role.The person in overall charge (POC) might not have performed the role of each individual commander and will only have an overview of their role. For instance, the role and function of a negotiator is not precise and they might well have to react to a circumstance. The POC cannot check each individual action of each individual commander, as in an operation that is moving a delay can be critical.
In a spontaneous/planned firearms incident there would be, in my day, a gold commander, one or more silvers, and a number of bronze. Then there would have been a cadre, tactical advisor, the person in control on communications, transport, the cordons, negotiators (3 was the required number to ensure a decision was made after discussion if possible, and relief) and more and more. Some roles might not be required.
Each of the persons performing the roles will have had a course detailing what they can and cannot do. Many will have instructions, directions from the great and the good after previous good/bad procedures in previous firearms incidents. The officers would be told that they must comply with certain procedures and that others are more advisory if circumstances permit.
You seem to be suggesting that someone be sacked if something goes wrong. So who should go? The person who pulled the trigger? The person who put the officer in a position where he had to make a decision whether to pull the trigger? Or the bronze in charge of the firearms team? The tacad? The cadre? The silver? Or the gold? All of these will, if they have any sense, have proof, and lots of it, that they followed agreed guidelines handed down from above, sometimes from politicians. Should it be those who directed the police? Or the MP, the coroner's officer (yes, some operational directives come/came from doctors), or the whole lot?
One option is to sack the person at the top, the CC in charge of the force concerned. But why? All that happened was that his officers did precisely what they were told to do.
In one firearms incident I have intimate knowledge of, which resulted in the death of an unarmed person, the various commanders were not disciplined, some say because they followed the guidelines closely and only went outside them due to the specific circumstances of the incident. One of them, a close friend, told me that he was impregnable. He'd done everything according to the course, the book and the circumstances. He could justify every action, every decision and, he said, every bloody thought.
However, he, along with others, were prosecuted, charged with criminal offences that carried a max of life imprisonment. This despite, as has been stated, following procedures laid down by the great and the good.
Some, especially those who had view of the disclosure and had read the judge's comments at a pre-trial hearing, may have felt that the police were only picked on because of political necessity. The deceased had intimates who had influence and my mate reckoned that was one of the reasons.
Another reason, I believe, is that, like you, many people felt that someone should be punished, sacked, disciplined, exposed as a failure, despite everyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances.
Not having a go at you personally, it is not as if you are unique in the suggestion that if someone isn't blamed and loses their job, it is wrong, but you say you are not happy that no one was punished. The thing is that in fast moving operational matters, mistakes will be made. That is unarguable. Those with authority to use, deploy and consider deadly force should be obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that as far as possible the risks are low, but sometimes things turn out as no one could have reasonably predicted. The officers in the above case were not happy with the outcome and some left the job due to the mental pressure of being involved in the killing of someone who was innocent, at least of a serious offence. So not feeling happy about such incidents is a fact of life. Nothing is perfect.
In the end the CC was sacked, unlawfully as it turned out, but sacked for something he had no control over at the time. His officers were trained to the required standard and the firearms team were amongst the best in the country. The force area had a number of firearms incidents each week that they turned out to and they had, up until then, performed their role in a manner which was beyond criticism as to the outcome.
The CC was highly intelligent, ran the force well in my opinion, and that of many others.
The deputy CC lost his job: my friend, a superintendent, acting chief, left the force, as did others of rank, all highly, and expensively trained, all had exemplary careers up until that time (and after in fact), and my mate had gone on course to prepare him for ACPO rank. All these people were force resources that were wasted because someone believed that if there was a death then someone, someone below them, had to be punished.
Sometimes life is a bugger. Those specific circs would not occur again because 'continuous improvement', ie writing something in the instructions to each individual responsibility after the event, would ensure that.
Just to clarify: I am not referring to the de Menezes and Stanley cases as I know nothing about them beyond what I have read in the papers, and I don't trust that of course. The one I quoted, I know a lot about.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff